No Beatles for you! EU adds 20 years to music copyrights

Three years after the push for copyright term extension began, the EU has …

It took three years of doing, but the music industry has finally won its European battle to lock up in-copyright sound recordings for another 20 years. Looking forward to The Beatles' music entering the public domain as the 50-year copyright terms expires? Not going to happen.

The Council of the European Union, where the various member state governments all have a say, voted yesterday (PDF) without discussion to increase the copyright term in sound recordings from 50 to 70 years. Small countries like Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Sweden voted against the extension, but it passed anyway.

The long and winding road to this point actually began in 2008, when the European Union announced a plan to extend musical copyrights to 95 years. The stated objective was to "help aging session musicians" who had been making small amounts of money from these recordings for 50 years but were about to be cut off just when the rigors of old age were taking their toll. (Why hadn't they saved money for the future during the last 50 years like everyone else? Who knows—it was a point no one seemed keen on addressing.)

In 2009, the European Parliament passed the extension, but it was blocked from adoption at the Council level (it was also lowered to 70 years from 95 years). After several years of lobbying, enough countries switched their position on the extension to allow yesterday's vote.

"Performers generally start their careers young and the current term of protection of 50 years often does not protect their performances for their entire lifetime," wrote the Council afterwards. "Therefore, some performers face an income gap at the end of their lifetimes."

Reaction

Reactions have been predictable. The CEO of global music trade group IFPI, Frances Moore, said in a statement that the vote was "a victory for fairness. With this decision, the European Union is giving artists and producers in Europe the fair treatment they deserve."

Pirate Party MEP Christian Engström, who tried and failed to give Parliament another shot at voting on the issue, took to his blog to call the decision "yet another example of how the Council and Commission of the EU are completely in the hands of the copyright lobby and will do whatever the lobbyists ask them to, no matter how absurd or harmful to society it may be." (Engström has strong views on the issue. He recently said in an interview, "It is true that the record companies have lost half their revenues. I say: 'Excellent! Half the job done.' What record companies do is distribution—it used to be an important function but now any teenager in his or her bedroom can do that work for free. In a market economy, your company will disappear unless it’s competitive.")

The UK's Open Rights Group called the measure "a cultural disaster Research showed that around 90 percent of the cash windfall from copyright levies will fall into the hands of record labels." The group also pointed out that the the UK's own government-commissioned reports on intellectual property had been skeptical of extending copyright protection—though there's a long history of ignoring expert opinion on this topic.

Bastards, the whole lot of them and why we at MAFIAAFire fight as well as why "copyright" should be ignored and ridiculed.

Watch out for something big that we will be releasing soon, it should give the copyright bastards a major kick inbetween their legs... just a few weeks, I'm betting even Ars will cover it on their front page.

Watch out for something big that we will be releasing soon, it should give the copyright bastards a major kick inbetween their legs... just a few weeks, I'm betting even Ars will cover it on their front page.

Watch out for something big that we will be releasing soon, it should give the copyright bastards a major kick inbetween their legs... just a few weeks, I'm betting even Ars will cover it on their front page.

Watch out for something big that we will be releasing soon, it should give the copyright bastards a major kick inbetween their legs... just a few weeks, I'm betting even Ars will cover it on their front page.

Well that makes sense. Copyright exists as an incentive to reward creative people, like...whoever the fuck owns the Beatles catalog now. I hear it's mostly Sony, though Michael Jackson's kids might still have a piece of it.

Small countries like Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Sweden voted against the extension

What exactly makes a country "small"? Romania has the 9th largest population in Europe, Netherlands 10th and the Czech Republic 12th. Sweden is geographically the third largest (although a very low population density). Are Germany, France, the UK and Spain "large" and the rest irrelevant?

I do like Sweden's commentary on the matter though

Quote:

Extending the term of protection for sound recordings as proposed is neither fair nor balanced. It therefore risks undermining the respect for copyright in general even further. Such a development is very unfortunate for all those who depend on copyright protection to make a living. Sweden believes there to be good reasons for measures aiming at improving the situation for those professional musicians and other artists who often operate under economically difficult conditions. Extending the term of protection will however not primarily be of benefit to this group.

Well that makes sense. Copyright exists as an incentive to reward creative people, like...whoever the fuck owns the Beatles catalog now. I hear it's mostly Sony, though Michael Jackson's kids might still have a piece of it.

I was outraged at the thought that an artist who had a hit record in his 20s might stop getting paid for it while he was only in his 70s. If they live to be 80 or 90, how the hell are they gonna get by?

Soooo... what we're saying is that an artist should put out material when they're 19 and then retire on it? I suppose that's fine if they pack some away into savings like normal people. Nothing is stopping them from producing new material, except stupid laws that reward entitlement attitudes.

What exactly makes a country "small"? Romania has the 9th largest population in Europe, Netherlands 10th and the Czech Republic 12th. Sweden is geographically the third largest (although a very low population density). Are Germany, France, the UK and Spain "large" and the rest irrelevant?

Hey Ars Technica - You need to read page 2 of the press release: "The term of protection will expire 70 years after the death of the last person to survive." Since Paul McCartney is still alive, Beatles music won't become public domain for at least another 70 years.

I read it, thanks. That change deals with songwriters, not recording artists.

Well that makes sense. Copyright exists as an incentive to reward creative people, like...whoever the fuck owns the Beatles catalog now. I hear it's mostly Sony, though Michael Jackson's kids might still have a piece of it.

I was outraged at the thought that an artist who had a hit record in his 20s might stop getting paid for it while he was only in his 70s. If they live to be 80 or 90, how the hell are they gonna get by?

The CEO of global music trade group IFPI, Frances Moore, said in a statement that the vote was "a victory for fairness. With this decision, the European Union is giving artists and producers in Europe the fair treatment they deserve."

Let me fix that for you. " a victory for IFPI and rights holders, not generally the artists who most likely signed away any rights to the songs they made at record deal time." Who will think of the great-great-great-future-grandchildren's children? Oh wait, the corporations great great to infinity's children.

Why don't they just make copyright protection for infinity already? It's what they obviously fucking want. A 100% total domination monopoly over any copyright ever produced, until the end of time.

The worst part of this is that the Commission bought a study by Dutch academics which advised against copyright / performance rights extensions. In the summary that was later published by the Commission there was no mention of this study. I'm not against lobbying, but I'm against plain and simple intellectual dishonesty. I'd say this merited a criminal investigation.

Seems reasonable. As much as I love free stuff, if I were the artist I would like to benefit from my work. As long as there remain people willing to pay for my stuff, I should have the exclusive right to it within my lifetime. The idea of indefinitely having my stuff controlled by my lineage seems problematic but within one's own lifetime I think it's reasonable. In general, I don't understand why people think we all have an inherent right to consume specific media.

Retroactive copyright extension is an abomination beyond Leviticus. Sonny Bono deserves to spend his afterlife being raped by a lobster thetan, which also slathers cheese sauce on his (regenerating) liver and eats it (yes, I am mixing mythologies. It's public domain, bitch) His punishment should end at the same time his song copyrights do.

"the fair treatment they deserve"What? What other job makes you able to work one weekend and get paid for 50+years? 50 is plenty enough. If you waste all your million during those 50 years then you're the one doing something wrong. Live with a pension like everyone else _in worst case scenario_.

There is one key clause in this bill (at least according to the Guardian story about it two days ago) that makes it pretty good:

If a label doesn't have the material in print, the control of the work reverts to the artists. Meaning they can release it themselves without the involvement of the company holding the rights to the recording. I'm guessing this means the artists can license the material to 3rd parties. This is a great solution for so much abandoned work (of which there is A LOT).

I do approximately 1 months work and then using protections offered by this law I can keep getting paid for the next 70 years? That's a good thing, right? I'll never have to work again! Yippie! Hawaii, here I come!

Hey Ars Technica - You need to read page 2 of the press release: "The term of protection will expire 70 years after the death of the last person to survive." Since Paul McCartney is still alive, Beatles music won't become public domain for at least another 70 years.

I read it, thanks. :) That change deals with songwriters, not recording artists.

Isn't that the trick they are trying to pull? That a recording "per se" might be out of copyright, but that the lyrics on the recording are still protected? And that even classical works/jazz standards receive a "personal interpretation" that by itself is again copyrighted? This is always the reason that is given that you cannot find a website in the EU that has a gigantic collection of 1930s jazz recordings to be downloaded for free.

But their friends spent all of their money helping them get high, but I think they are gonna try to help anyway.

slopduck wrote:

There is one key clause in this bill (at least according to the Guardian story about it two days ago) that makes it pretty good:

If a label doesn't have the material in print, the control of the work reverts to the artists. Meaning they can release it themselves without the involvement of the company holding the rights to the recording. I'm guessing this means the artists can license the material to 3rd parties. This is a great solution for so much abandoned work (of which there is A LOT).

Good in theory. In practice, though, 'in print' can be a bit dubious. "No, that heavy metal album is still in print. We shipped 10 copies of it to a Polka record store last year"

Seems reasonable. As much as I love free stuff, if I were the artist I would like to benefit from my work. As long as there remain people willing to pay for my stuff, I should have the exclusive right to it within my lifetime. The idea of indefinitely having my stuff controlled by my lineage seems problematic but within one's own lifetime I think it's reasonable. In general, I don't understand why people think we all have an inherent right to consume specific media.

EDIT: Grammar

From the Constitution's "Copyright Clause":

Quote:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts(emphasis mine), by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

It's about promoting progress not enriching the creator indefinitely. Getting protection for a limited time encourages the creation. That protection running out encourages the creation of more instead of just sitting back for the rest of one's life. And note the clause writes the purpose as promoting progress, and the method as limited protection. It does not say the purpose is to enrich the creator.

Well that makes sense. Copyright exists as an incentive to reward creative people, like...whoever the fuck owns the Beatles catalog now. I hear it's mostly Sony, though Michael Jackson's kids might still have a piece of it.

I was outraged at the thought that an artist who had a hit record in his 20s might stop getting paid for it while he was only in his 70s. If they live to be 80 or 90, how the hell are they gonna get by?

With a little help from their friends?

Thanks to modern technology, my current copy of that song will likely outlast the current copyright extension. There's nothing left to buy now.

>>Engström has strong views on the issue. He recently said in an interview, "It is true that the record companies have lost half their revenues. I say: 'Excellent! Half the job done.' What record companies do is distribution—it used to be an important function but now any teenager in his or her bedroom can do that work for free. In a market economy, your company will disappear unless it’s competitive.") <<

That seems a bit simplistic.

Record companies not only distribute the music (make sure the music is delivered from the manufacturing plant to sales outlets), they also provide extensive PR measures, finance music videos, make connections to other media (TV, radio etc.), and - most of all - they choose what artists to push in the limelight.

I would agree that they´ve done a rather bad job in the latter regard, what with trying to make hip hop music the new mainstream when the vast majority of music listeners can´t stand that kind of music, but promotion still IS the record companies´ job.

When sixty zillion artists all compete for the public´s attention, it takes someone with musical expertise to cut through the mustard and filter out those artists with really great appeal and potential and promote those artists. There´ll always have to be an industry for that.